TexasCHLforum.com

oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...

Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.

* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf

oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...

Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.

* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:43 pm Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.

https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule

ELB wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:43 pm Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.

https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule

In mid-April, the corps outlined proposed regulations in the Federal Register that would remove a requirement that gun owners obtain written permission before carrying on water development sites. Currently, the requirement is only waived for hunters who unload their firearms between destinations and for patrons of shooting ranges.

"The written permission requirement in the current Corps regulation is inconsistent with the regulations and approach by the other Federal land management agencies, which generally authorize the possession of weapons when in accordance with state and local laws and the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the weapon," the corps explains in its proposal.

The document goes on to claim that, by deferring to state and local rules entirely, these revisions will resolve inconsistencies between how firearms are governed on corps projects and on state territory.

In mid-April, the corps outlined proposed regulations in the Federal Register that would remove a requirement that gun owners obtain written permission before carrying on water development sites. Currently, the requirement is only waived for hunters who unload their firearms between destinations and for patrons of shooting ranges.

"The written permission requirement in the current Corps regulation is inconsistent with the regulations and approach by the other Federal land management agencies, which generally authorize the possession of weapons when in accordance with state and local laws and the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the weapon," the corps explains in its proposal.

The document goes on to claim that, by deferring to state and local rules entirely, these revisions will resolve inconsistencies between how firearms are governed on corps projects and on state territory.

chasfm11 wrote:

s3779m wrote:I have tried to keep up, off and on with this case but have not seen anything new in about 8 months. Does anyone know if it is moving forward, dropped or has it been ruled on? I take it we still can not carry on acoe land here in Texas?

I contacted the office of Congressman Burgess. I asked him to intervene with the Ft. Worth COE based on this case. My question was: why is it necessary for a citizen in every COE District to have to file a lawsuit when the COE has already lost and this could be fixed by executive action from the district commander. Nothing came of it. Frankly, I didn't have very high hopes of success but I thought it worth a try.